I have already noticed that the sects into which the reformed churches are split, may be classified generally under two great divisions, the one adopting mainly the milder views of Melancthon, whose advice was much used in the reform of the Anglican church; the other following those of Calvin, which were chiefly carried out, at Geneva, the birthplace of that reformer, and among the Huguenots of France. It may be well, therefore, before we proceed to notice the particular sects which profess to combine in a greater or less degree the doctrines usually termed Calvinistic, to examine what the opinions are which pass under that name. [90]It was at the Synod of Dort, which was assembled in the year 1618, that these opinions received a decided form; for James Arminius, professor of divinity in the University of Leyden, having rejected some part of the Genevan doctrine respecting predestination and grace, this synod was called in order to settle the disputed points. After much debate the opinions of Arminius were condemned, and the doctrine of Calvin was summed up in five points, which gave name to what has been called the Quinqueticular controversy between the Calvinistic and Anti-calvinistic divines of Holland. They related to,

1. Predestination or Election.

2. The extent of redemption.

3. Moral depravity and impotency. [91]

4. Effectual calling.

5. Final perseverance of the sanctified.

Calvinists are understood to maintain that predestination is absolute; redemption limited; moral impotency total; grace inevitable; and the salvation of the believer, certain. But among Calvinistic as among Arminian divines, there are many shades of difference indicated by the terms high Calvinist, and moderate Calvinist, sub lapsarian and supra lapsarian, scholastic Calvinism and popular Calvinism; which latter has been described as “the Augustinian theology strained off from its mathematics.” These all differ so materially that Bishop Horsley found it necessary to admonish his clergy “to beware how they aimed their shaft at Calvinism before they knew what it is, and what it is not;” a great part of what ignorantly goes under that name, being “closely interwoven with the very rudiments of Christianity.” I believe, however, that though differences may subsist among Calvinists themselves, as to the explication of their doctrines, they generally allow,

1. That God has chosen a certain number in Christ, to everlasting glory before the foundation of the world, according to his immutable purpose, and of his free grace and love; without the least foresight of faith, good works, or any conditions performed by the creature; and that the rest of mankind he was pleased to pass by, and ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sins to the praise of his vindictive justice.

2. That Christ by his death and sufferings made an atonement only for the sins of the elect. [93a]

3. That mankind are totally depraved in consequence of the fall.

4. That all whom God has predestined to life, he is pleased in his appointed time effectually to call by his Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.

5. That those whom God has effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, shall never finally fall from a state of grace.

The prominent feature then, of the Calvinistic system, [93b] is the election of some, and reprobation of others from all eternity; but to this we may answer, that if all mankind are really appointed to sin and punishment, holiness and salvation irrespectively to any act of their own, then they will be judged in exact opposition to our Saviour’s declaration, that he will reward every man according to his works: [95a] and again, that it is “not the will of ‘our’ Father which is in heaven that one of those little ones,” i.e. children, “should perish.” [95b] These declarations would, I think, sufficiently prove that St. Paul’s expressions on the subject relate to national, and not individual election, even had the Apostle himself left his meaning unexplained: for the servant is not greater than his master, and it is not possible that an inspired Apostle should preach a doctrine different from that of Him who commissioned him; but if I mistake not, he has himself taken especial care that his meaning on this important subject should not be misunderstood. For first, it is a notorious fact, though often overlooked in argument, that the very passage, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” which is the main support claimed for the doctrine of absolute decrees, is quoted from Exodus, and forms the assurance given by God himself to Moses, that He had separated the Hebrew nation from all the people on the face of the earth. [96a] Again St. Paul has asserted that God will render to every man according to his deeds, for there is no respect of persons with God. [96b] God will have all men to be saved, &c. &c.

God forbid that we should consider that a man may not be a sincere Christian, who believes himself irrevocably called, “elect,” and inevitably secure of his salvation; or declare that a strict Calvinist cannot be attached to our church: but St. Paul teaches that “Christ died for all;” that grace instead of being irresistible may be received in vain; that those who have been once justified instead of being sure of “final perseverance” and salvation, may “sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth,” and “draw back to perdition,” so that it behoves every one “who thinketh he standeth to take heed lest he fall.” [96c]In regard to “irresistible” (special) “grace,” Scripture assures us that grace sufficient for salvation is denied to none; for St. Paul in every passage of the Epistles, which relates to grace, declares that the Spirit works in the souls of all, enabling them, if they do not obstinately resist it, “to work out their salvation.” The following passage is taken from the work of a teacher of the doctrine of Special Grace. “The reign of sin consists not in the multitude, greatness or prevalency of sins, for all these are consistent with a state of grace, and may be in a child of God, in whom sin doth not and cannot reign; but in the in-being of sin without grace, whether it act more or less violently, yea, whether it acts at all or no: yet if the habit of sin possess the soul without any principle of grace implanted, which is contrary to it, that man may be said to be still under the dominion of sin. This mortification then of sin, as to its reigning power, is completed in the first act of conversion and regeneration.” [98a] But this language is by no means that of St. Paul: for the writer makes grace the test of holiness; whereas the apostle, following therein the doctrine of his master,—“by their fruits ye shall know them,”—makes holiness the test of grace. Indeed the obscurity and perplexing nature of the doctrine above quoted, stands in no favourable contrast with the simple and clear declaration of the Saviour, that we “do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles,”—and that therefore the heart must be known by the words and actions: and the no less decided and simple exposition of the doctrine of Christ, by the beloved disciple, “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous . . . he that committeth sin is of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin . . . whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.” [98b]

The doctrine of the total depravity of human nature, it appears to me, cannot be proved from Scripture any more than the two former. St. John, whilst asserting that no man is wholly without sin, exhorts to efforts, and supposes a possible state of Christian perfection in his converts, wholly incompatible with a state of entire corruption: and St. Paul, though he clearly states that sin has brought all men under condemnation, and that the unspirituality of the flesh can only be successfully opposed by the influence of the Holy Spirit, does not declare the consequences of the Fall in terms such as we find in the Calvinistic writers—as “Man, instead of the image of God, was now become the image of the Devil; instead of the citizen of heaven, he was become the bond-slave of hell, having in himself no one part of his former purity, but being altogether spotted and defiled—now he seemed to be nothing else but a lump of sin.” And again: “Man is of his own nature fleshly and corrupt, &c. without any spark of goodness in him; only given to evil thoughts and evil deeds.” Even human nature, if closely examined, does not bear testimony to this as truth: for either the grace of God is accorded in such large measure to man from his birth, that none can be considered as wholly bad; or the utter corruption preached by Calvin does not exist. All experience may be appealed to on this point, even that of the persons who use the above language; for if they search their own hearts in sincerity, they will become conscious of amiable affections, and admiration of what is good and right: neither, probably, are they guilty of any such gross and habitual sins, as must mark a nature so wholly depraved. The Calvinist therefore can only use these strong phrases with certain grains of allowance: and he would be wiser if he were to avoid offending his—if he prefer so to call him—weaker brother, by technical terms which he himself cannot use in their full force before the Searcher of hearts.

Decorative header